Council narrowly approves inclusion of two parcels into InnerQuest North Business Improvement District after conflict-of-interest concerns
Loading...
Summary
City Council approved Ordinance 25-40 to add two parcels (about 5.44 acres) to the InnerQuest North Business Improvement District by a 6–2 vote after a public hearing where opponents raised questions about costs, reimbursements and a board member’s ownership ties to the property.
Colorado Springs City Council voted 6–2 to adopt Ordinance 25-40, allowing two parcels totaling about 5.44 acres to be included in the InnerQuest North Business Improvement District (BID).
The inclusion was requested by the property owner and the BID board to permit financing of public improvements—water and sewer mains, internal roads and landscaping—through the district. The council heard detailed presentations from city planning staff, a legal representative for the petitioner and a written statement presented by Lisa Bigelow on behalf of an absent objector, Tim Leonard.
Opponents represented by Bigelow and Leonard argued the annexation would subsidize work that benefits a single property owner rather than the district as a whole. They said the district’s taxpayers already paid for much of the existing infrastructure and asked whether reimbursements to the district had been disclosed and whether including the property would divert district funds to improve private sections of the site. Bigelow specifically flagged that a district board member is affiliated with the property owner and bond holder and argued that created an appearance of self-dealing.
Petitioner counsel Nicole Paykoff said the BID’s operating plan for 2025 showed $4.1 million in capital expenditures for projects across the district but that the costs to serve the specific parcel were not yet fixed because the site is not developed. She said the district expects the parcel’s development to generate property tax and public improvement fee revenue and does not believe inclusion will adversely affect the BID. The petitioner reiterated that, under Colorado statute, only a property owner may petition for inclusion.
Council members asked for clearer cost estimates tying expected district expenditures to anticipated revenue from the parcel. Several members expressed unease about the overlap of interests when a property owner also sits on the BID board and holds district bonds.
Councilmember Mike O’Malley moved to approve the ordinance; Councilmember Michelle Tallarico seconded. The motion passed 6–2, with Councilmembers Dave Donaldson and Randy Helms voting no.
